Lisbon Treaty — Accept the changes of terminology in the Lisbon Treaty — 3 Mar 2008 at 22:00
John Penrose MP, Weston-Super-Mare voted in the minority (No).
This Clause was particularly contentious as it was argued by the No-voters that it effectively confirmed the abolition of the European Community and its replacement by the European Union. The effect of this, it was argued, was to increase the powers of the European Union to include common foreign and security policy and parts of criminal justice and policing.
However, Jim Murphy MP argued that:
- '...our negotiated position has ensured the right to opt in or out on any amending measure, Schengen-building measures and transitional measures. Whenever there is a transition from former pillar three to the new pillar one Community method, in the new democratic architecture, we have a chance to opt in on each proposal. At the end of the five-year transitionary period, we have the right to opt out en bloc, en masse, and can then apply to opt back in to each and every new measure.'
- Streamline EU institutions
- Establish a permanent President of the European Council (as of 16 March 2010 held by Herman Van Rompuy)
- Establish the post of High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (as of 16 March 2010 held by Catherine Ashton)
- Give new powers to the EU over justice and home affairs
- Remove the national veto in some areas such as energy security and emergency aid
-  Motion on Clause 3, House of Commons, 3 March 2008
-  David Heathcoat-Amory MP, House of Commons, 3 March 2008
-  Jim Murphy MP, House of Commons, 3 March 2008
-  The Three Pillars of the European Union - (in this case Jim Murphy is referring to policy areas which come under the jurisdiction of the EU)
-  After five years the UK will have to decide whether it is willing to accept the new powers of the EU in common policy areas, The True Guide to the Treaty of Lisbon (p. 10)
-  BBC News Q&A: The Lisbon Treaty, 5 February 2010
Votes by party, red entries are votes against the majority for that party.
What is Tell? '+1 tell' means that in addition one member of that party was a teller for that division lobby.
What are Boths? An MP can vote both aye and no in the same division. The boths page explains this.
What is Turnout? This is measured against the total membership of the party at the time of the vote.
|Party||Majority (Aye)||Minority (No)||Both||Turnout|
|Con||1||144 (+2 tell)||0||75.8%|
|Lab||281 (+2 tell)||2||0||81.0%|
|Kenneth Clarke||Rushcliffe||Con (front bench)||aye|
|Ian Davidson||Glasgow South West||Lab (minister)||no|
|David Drew||Stroud||Lab (minister)||no|